TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court rules electronic typewriters not new article under Industries Development & Regulation Act. Petitioners prevail.</h1> <h3>GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. PVT. LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA - 1990 (45) E.L.T. 536 (Bom.) Issues:1. Interpretation of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951 regarding the manufacture of electronic typewriters.2. Whether electronic typewriters constitute a 'new article' under Section 3(dd) (b) of the Act.3. Consideration of the definition of a mark under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1940 in relation to the sale of electronic typewriters.4. Assessment of the respondents' argument regarding the marketing of electronic typewriters under a different trade mark.5. Decision on the petition challenging the respondent's letters dated 25th October, 1982 and 4th January, 1983.6. Discharge of bank guarantees and awarding costs of the petition.Analysis:The judgment by the Bombay High Court, delivered by Justice Bharucha, pertained to a case where the petitioners, previously manufacturing typewriters and registered under the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951, sought permission to manufacture electronic typewriters within their licensed capacity. The petitioners argued that electronic typewriters fell under the existing license for typewriters, disputing the need for a separate license. The court initially granted interim relief allowing the manufacture of electronic typewriters under the existing license, a decision upheld on appeal.During the hearing, the respondents contended that electronic typewriters constituted a 'new article' as defined in Section 3(dd) (b) of the Act. The definition referred to articles bearing a mark not previously manufactured by the industrial undertaking. However, the respondents failed to provide evidence that the electronic typewriters were marketed under a different mark than the standard typewriters. The court noted that the petitioners intended to market the electronic typewriters under the same trade mark, indicating they did not qualify as a new article under the Act.The court emphasized the importance of factual evidence, rejecting assumptions regarding the marketing of electronic typewriters. Ultimately, the petition was allowed, affirming the petitioners' right to manufacture electronic typewriters under the existing license. Additionally, the court ordered the discharge of bank guarantees and awarded costs of the petition to the petitioners. Despite the respondents' request to delay the discharge of bank guarantees, the court dismissed the submission, concluding the case in favor of the petitioners.
TaxTMI 